And exactly... how... have I done that by saying I don't agree with you that a man who calls himself a woman is not a woman until he becomes a woman? Disagreeing is no discrimination.

I think we agreed to disagree there. My definition of gender differs from yours, so our definition of women differs. Okay, but thats not what I'm talking about. I am talking about the things I quoted. You saying they are easy to spot. That is false. Sometimes they are easy to spot, sometimes its impossible. Sotiris provided an example for you. But you still ignore it by saying you'd be able to tell in real life. Which you wouldn't because I don't think you have magic powers that can see into a persons past.

Goliath wrote:

No, it's not. I'm not saying they are lesser persons or that I think less of them because of who they are. I'm not putting them down. I just gave my opinon on what I don't consider attractive. If I were to say I don't find people with red hair attractive, am I discriminating against people with red hair? I'm just stating a preference, like lots of people do! It's only because this time it's about transgendered people that you make a fake outrage about it. And saying someone is easy to spot or not isn't discrimination. A black guy is easy to spot, too, when he's all surrounded by white men. Pointing that out doesn't mean somebody is discriminating against black people.

Nope, you wouldn't be discriminating. You can tell if a red haired woman has red hair; because she has red hair! Tell me how you can tell a how a woman is trans? There are absolutely no definiate markers for this. Extremely masculine or very tall woman are your only clue, but not nearly all transwoman are like this, which you seem to think. And because you have this mindset that all transwoman are tall and ugly and noticeable, you think all are unattractive to men, and all are easily spotted. But not all are like this. But since you are lumping them all together, you are being discriminatory.

Goliath wrote:

I already explained this above: stating preferences does not equal discrimination. Some people don't think black women are attractive; they prefer white women. Doesn't make them racist.

Right, but no. One may not be attracted to black woman because they do not like something physical about them. But transwoman don't always have physical or emotional markers, and it is impossible to spot them. I will repeat: Some are beautiful. Some are not. Some are average. Some are more manly because of unfortunate circumstances, but by no means are all of them like that. Which you seem to think, possibly because all you know about transwomen is from the mainstream media? Kids that started puberty blockers before puberty and then cross hormone therapy later on show exactly NO difference between others their age. I know this from experience with them (I mostly consult with trans youth). And all of them would be able to "trick" you, as you wouldn't be able to "spot" them in a crowd. Because, again, they are no different.

Goliath wrote:

Again, your fake outrage is getting the best of you. A guy who's 2 metres long stands out from a group of liliputters as well. Doesn't mean I'm discriminating against tall people when I point that out.

No. Not all transwoman are like that. You seen to share that mainstream media view that transwoman are huge, burly "woman" with stubble and deep voices. It's just so laughable. Some who transitioned earlier are naturally short. Any trans youth girls that transitioned before or during puberty are a normal height for girls because estrogen regulates and then stops growth when in a high enough adult dosage.

Goliath wrote:

Awaiting my apology...

I don't feel that you explained how saying that men aren't attracted to people that look, act, and are the same as any other woman is not discrimination. Saying that you can point transwomen out in a crowd is still discrimination, and untrue. You mean a certain type of transwomen with certain qualities, and for some reason, you think this means all of them.

Goliath wrote:

Well, accusing me of discriminating people feels a little demeaning to me.

I am sorry if it made you feel bad, but I really think you were being discriminatory, so I think I had a right to point it out.

EDIT for your response to Sotiris:

Goliath wrote:

How is saying I don't like all redheaded women is different from saying I don't like all transgendered women

Because you don't like red haired woman because you aren't attracted to the physical attribute of red hair. Transwoman do not have defining attributes like that, except in very extreme cases. So saying you aren't attracted to all transwomen means you aren't attracted to them solely because they belong to a certain group. Thats discrimination against transwomen. I know I am repeating myself, but you continue to think that they do, which is just plain false.

Nope, you wouldn't be discriminating. You can tell if a red haired woman has red hair; because she has red hair! Tell me how you can tell a how a woman is trans? There are absolutely no definiate markers for this.

You're changing the subject. The subject was discrimination in relation to personal preferences. If I say I'm not attracted to transgender women, I don't have to defend that anymore than when I would say I'm not attracted to redheaded women. I'm just not. I don't have to pass a 'test' to be allowed to have my own tastes.

Alphapanchito wrote:

Extremely masculine or very tall woman are your only clue, but not nearly all transwoman are like this, which you seem to think. And because you have this mindset that all transwoman are tall and ugly and noticeable, you think all are unattractive to men, and all are easily spotted. But not all are like this. But since you are lumping them all together, you are being discriminatory.

Like I said to Sotiris, obviously not all men are unattracted to them. That's what we call hyperbole, but you know damn well what hyperbole is and you are very capable of spotting it, I'm sure. "All" is often used that way, as in, for example: "all men watch porn". No, not all men watch porn, it's just an expression to indicate that lots of men watch porn and it's not a rarity. (Although I have no doubt Sotiris would call the PC police on me for being misandrist for saying something like that.)

Alphapanchito wrote:

Right, but no. One may not be attracted to black woman because they do not like something physical about them. But transwoman don't always have physical or emotional markers, and it is impossible to spot them. I will repeat: Some are beautiful. Some are not. Some are average.

The same goes for black women: some are beautiful. Some are not. Some are average. But somehow it isn't discriminatory when I point that some people don't fall for black woman, but it *is* when it's about transgendered women? Biased much?

Alphapanchito wrote:

No. Not all transwoman are like that. You seen to share that mainstream media view that transwoman are huge, burly "woman" with stubble and deep voices. It's just so laughable.

Where the f--- did I say that? I was just making up a new comparison because I had already used the black guy amongst the white men. So I came up with the tall guy example. Doesn't mean I think transgender people are like that. I thought you knew how comparisons worked.

Alphapanchito wrote:

I don't feel that you explained how saying that men aren't attracted to people that look, act, and are the same as any other woman is not discrimination.

Well it's not exactly a matter of feeling, as it is of reading.

Alphapanchito wrote:

Because you don't like red haired woman because you aren't attracted to the physical attribute of red hair. Transwoman do not have defining attributes like that, except in very extreme cases. So saying you aren't attracted to all transwomen means you aren't attracted to them solely because you belong to another group. I know I am repeating myself, but you continue to think that they do, which is just plain false.

Doesn't matter. I'm still comparing one group (redheaded women) to another group (transgendered women) and you still want me to apply a double standard. Which I refuse.

How is saying I don't like all redheaded women is different from saying I don't like all transgendered women?

It's different because transwomen are not just one specific type. They don't look alike. They can be blonde, redhead, brunette, white, black, Asian, Latino, tall, short, skinny, big etc. They can come from any ethinicity, race or creed. They don't have a specific set of features that are common in all of them. They don't have any physical or behavioral indicators that set them apart from ciswomen.

I think you are just stuck on the idea that all transwomen look like men in drag. That clearly is not the case.

Goliath wrote:

Something which is often lost on the chief justices of the PC patrol.

This has nothing to do with being overly PC. Don't you respond whenever other members make a homophobic/racist/sexist remark? You do. You made a transphobic statement and Alphapanchito called you on it. Just admit it already.

_________________

Last edited by Sotiris on Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

It's different because transwomen are not just one specific type. They don't look alike. They're blonde, redhead, brunette, white, black, Asian, Latino, tall, short, skinny, big etc. They can come from any ethinicity, race or creed. If you still can't understand that, then I'm sorry for you.

Well, I feel sorry for you that you feel you have to prove your moral superiority by jumping on every joke a member on UD makes with disapproving remarks and rolling eyes. We all have our flaws. If you don't understand that you're applying two different standards for two groups in a comparison, that's your flaw right there.

Sotiris wrote:

This has nothing to do with being overly PC. Don't you respond whenever other members make a homophobic/racist/sexist remark? You do.

I do. But I don't make disapproving comments and insert rolling eye smilies over every joke, like you have been doing for the past few weeks. (Is this a recent hobby? I never seen you do that before.)

Sotiris wrote:

You made a transphobic statement and Alpanchito called you on it. Just admit it already.

Why should I admit something that's not true at all? Just because you two made it up?

(edited for typo's)

Last edited by Goliath on Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You're changing the subject. The subject was discrimination in relation to personal preferences. If I say I'm not attracted to transgender women, I don't have to defend that anymore than when I would say I'm not attracted to redheaded women.

This personal preference of yours doesn't seem to have a basis, though. Can you tell me why you aren't attracted to red haired woman (if you are, use another example if you please), and then can you tell me why you are not attracted to transwoman?

Also, weren't you the one who has said in other threads that you don't have a "type" of woman you are attracted to? Because you like to keep your options open or something? I think that was you, but I'm not totally sure.

Goliath wrote:

Like I said to Sotiris, obviously not all men are unattracted to them. That's what we call hyperbole, but you know damn well what hyperbole is and you are very capable of spotting it, I'm sure. "All" is often used that way, as in, for example: "all men watch porn". No, not all men watch porn, it's just an expression to indicate that lots of men watch porn and it's not a rarity. (Although I have no doubt Sotiris would call the PC police on me for being misandrist for saying something like that.)

I never said that you said that literally all men are unattracted to transwoman. I said that you think all transwoman fit a certain catagory which makes them unattractive to you. Is that not correct? I'd like to know what it is about transwoman that makes you unattracted to them, because, yet again, I will say that many transwoman bear no difference from ciswoman. So it would be impossible for you to unattracted to them, because you wouldn't know. Unless of course, you had a serious relationship, because at some point they would probably tell you. And by then, if you loved her, you wouldn't care (assuming, because I still don't know what it is about transwomen that you find unattractive).

Goliath wrote:

The same goes for black women: some are beautiful. Some are not. Some are average. But somehow it isn't discriminatory when I point that some people don't fall for black woman, but it *is* when it's about transgendered women? Biased much?

Because, you are saying some people aren't physically attracted to people who are black. But you can't say people aren't physically attracted to transwoman, because some look, and act the same as any other woman, and there is nothing to determine they are trans. So there is nothing there to be a turn off. However, almost all "black" woman are dark skinned, and you can tell they are black (some people who are half black pass as white, and then many who usually turn down black people because they are black are physically attracted to those individuals that look "white" but are still half black).

Goliath wrote:

Alphapanchito wrote:

No. Not all transwoman are like that. You seen to share that mainstream media view that transwoman are huge, burly "woman" with stubble and deep voices. It's just so laughable.

Where the f--- did I say that? I was just making up a new comparison because I had already used the black guy amongst the white men. So I came up with the tall guy example. Doesn't mean I think transgender people are like that. I thought you knew how comparisons worked.

I added burly with stubble and deep voices, because by then i thought you totally thought that transwoman all fit into the media's sterotypes, and I was completing the visual I thought you had. If you don't think all transwoman are tall or have other features that "out" them as trans, why are you unattracted to them? What about them makes them unattractive. Is it only because they belong to a certain group (discrimination)?

Goliath wrote:

Alphapanchito wrote:

I don't feel that you explained how saying that men aren't attracted to people that look, act, and are the same as any other woman is not discrimination.

Well it's not exactly a matter of feeling, as it is of reading.

Can you point out where you explained to me why you are not attracted to a whole group of people that is no different from any other woman except for something they had to deal with in their past? That would help me see that this isn't discrimination.

Goliath wrote:

Alphapanchito wrote:

Because you don't like red haired woman because you aren't attracted to the physical attribute of red hair. Transwoman do not have defining attributes like that, except in very extreme cases. So saying you aren't attracted to all transwomen means you aren't attracted to them solely because you belong to another group. I know I am repeating myself, but you continue to think that they do, which is just plain false.

Doesn't matter. I'm still comparing one group (redheaded women) to another group (transgendered women) and you still want me to apply a double standard. Which I refuse.

People with red hair share a physical quality. Transwoman share an internal issue from birth that they may have dealt with long ago and show no signs of being any different from any other woman. Some transwoman have red hair; feel free to not be attracted to those. Feel free to not be attracted to anything you aren't attracted to on any woman. But can you tell me you are unattracted to an event that a person experienced in their life? Thats.. interesting.

Actually, I'm with Goliath on this one. Although, I hate Glee more than any single person on this board could ever.

Of course, the transwomen aren't attractive thing just really points to: "icky(!), they used to have penises!" more than an actual natural judgment of beauty. But I disagree that they get sex changes because they want men to find them sexier. I think it's because they want to feel more like real women.

@ Alphapanchito: well, I'm not gonna repeat what I said again. I did it two times, that should suffice. If not and you want to think of me as someone who is discriminatory or "transphobe" as Sotiris called me, then so be it.

Sotiris wrote:

Perhaps your "jokes" are the problem and not my responses. Excuse me, for not finding funny discriminatory and insulting remarks!

There's nothing insulting in saying: "It may be stereotypical, but no straight guy loves Julie Andrews *and* Glee that much." ESPECIALLY when was added to it, to make it even more fucking obvious it was a joke.

Okay, you don't have a sense of humor. At all. I get that now. You want to suck the life and fun out of everything and everybody by policing what they should or shouldn't say. To each his own hobby. If you want to walk around with a stick up your ass, more power to you. But don't turn the tables and pretend your misplaced feeling of moral superiority is justified in any way.

And no, I wasn't insulted. I just like to point out the degree of absurdity of your concern trolling. Because it's annoying as hell.

Except that they are under Transsexuals or Transgenderism. Otherwise they wouldn't be under that category would they?

Yes, but all that means is they have dealt with a similar event in their life. Which is so different from physical qualities such as red hair. Can people not be attracted to a a person because of a certain event that person faced in their lives, and the action that they took to correct the situation?

There's nothing insulting in saying: "It may be stereotypical, but no straight guy loves Julie Andrews *and* Glee that much." ESPECIALLY when was added to it, to make it even more obvious it was a joke.

Perhaps, I did overreact. I just found it to be one of those jokes that stem from discrimination and homophobia like the "that's so gay" ones. I know it's harmless and I wasn't trying to "attack" you personally, just this type of mentality that permeates modern-day discourse. I know you're not homophobic and I did not try to insinuate that you are.

Lazario wrote:

I don't think you're playing morally superior or have a stick up your ass at all.

WASHINGTON -- Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) indicated that he is likely to sign the state's sweeping anti-abortion bill, which includes a provision that would allow doctors to withhold information from patients.

Brownback, speaking to The Huffington Post Monday following the National Governors Association meeting, said that while he has not read the 69-page bill, he is likely to sign the proposal since he opposes abortion rights. Brownback, a former U.S. senator, has signed several anti-abortion bills since he took office last year.

"I am pro-life," Brownback said. "When I campaigned I said that if a pro-life bill got to my desk, I will sign it. I am not backing away from that."

The latest bill -- which is scheduled to be discussed by a legislative committee for a second time on Wednesday -- contains a number of provisions which would give the state one of the most sweeping anti-abortion laws in the nation. Among the provisions is one which would exempt doctors from malpractice suits if they withhold information -- in order to prevent an abortion -- that could have prevented a health problem for the mother or child. A wrongful death suit could be filed in the event of the death of the mother.

Other provisions include requiring women to hear the fetal heartbeat prior to an abortion, taking away tax credits for abortion providers and removing tax deductions for abortion-related insurance. The bill also requires that women be told that abortions would increase the risk of breast cancer, a controversial theory that the World Health Organization, the National Cancer Institute and gynecological groups in the United States and the United Kingdom have said is incorrect.

The bill has garnered opposition from legislative Democrats and at least one moderate Republican lawmaker.

Sarah Gillooly, the public affairs manager for Planned Parenthood of Kansas, told The Huffington Post earlier this month that the bill was "the largest and most sweeping overhaul we've seen to date."

Brownback declined discuss the specifics of the bill, reiterating that he has not studied the text.

The bill has several more steps before reaching Brownback's desk, including consideration in the conservative Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which is expected to approve the bill, and in the moderate Republican-dominated Senate, where bill opponents are hoping for defeat.

With the moderate state Senate Republicans facing August primary challenges from more conservative Republicans, Brownback said he is likely to stay out of the primaries, even though a more conservative Senate would probably be helpful to passing his agenda. Brownback and the conservative state House have seen multiple proposals defeated by moderate GOP senators.

"What I want to do is wait until after the primary and support the party's candidates," Brownback said.

Brownback said he does not know if a more conservative Senate would be helpful to his agenda, adding that he would need to review any change in Senate policy on an issue-by-issue basis. Among the issues he said he'll look at are taxes, education spending, judicial reform, economic development and pensions -- as well as maintaining his stance on abortion-related legislation.

Among the most divisive issues between Brownback and a coalition of moderate Republicans and the state's Democratic minority is the governor's proposal to rewrite the state's tax code. Brownback has been facing fire for his initiative, which includes eliminating a slew of deductions, such as those for charitable giving. Senate Republicans have formed their own study group to formulate a tax plan.

Brownback defended the plan, which he noted is a "flat tax" and said that he is expecting it to pass. He said that it is similar to the Simpson-Bowles proposal, and that he believes it is also similar to President Obama's corporate tax proposal. According to Brownback, his tax plan would help the state's business community.

"The very notion of a flat tax is it takes out exemptions and deductions," he said.

All I can say is that I hope the people of Kansas take a stand against this legislation.

I doubt it. This is Kansas we're talking about here not NJ or NY. majority of people there have very vague understanding and education about world around them which leads to them having narrow minded minds.

Almost amazing how Clark Kent grew up in that state with out any retardation.

^ Stuff like that, and the recent surge of Rick Santorum and all the things he said, the bill that required women in a certain state to have an involuntarily vaginal probe before they get an abortion, the recent debate about contraception... really make it look like the US is a country that's still in the 1950's and has not joined the rest of the world. You are the only super-power in the world, you have the biggest and strongest army ever, you can bomb the f--- out of everybody and anything you want... yet you can't get over rights that were already established in the 1970's? I mean, why don't people just accept the seperation of church and state?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum